Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/06/23 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 23, 1993 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that a letter had been received from Alta Loma School District requesting that Item E be pulled from the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15540 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A residential subdivision and design review for the development of 159 single family homes on 24.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code areas, located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32, and 34. Related Files: Variance 93-03 and Tree Removal Permit 93-04. Staff recommends issuan=e of a mitigated Negative Declaration. VARIANCE 93-03 - FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - A request to reduce the minimum building separations from 15 to 10 feet, the minimum building-to- curb setbacks from 15 to 8 feet, and the required common open space area percentage from 35 percent to approximately 10 percent of the total project area for a proposed residential subdivision of 159 single family lots on 24.56 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Development Code areas, located between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route, west of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, APN: 207-211-01, 18 through 21, 31, 32, and 34. Related Files: Tentative Tract 15540 and Tree Removal Permit 93-04. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the central spine street will be installed to meet City standards so that it could be dedicated to the City at a later time. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that although the street will be constructed to City standards, it is doubtful the street would be accepted as a City street because the entry from Foothill Boulevard does not meet City standards for public streets. He said the cul-de-sacs would not be accepted by Engineering because of the medians in the middle. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the intersection at Foothill Boulevard could be redesigned so that it could be modified so the City might accept it in the future. Mr. James stated that would require a modification to the map. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had asked because in the past private street associations have later approached the City to dedicate private streets to becoming public streets. He asked if the storm drain in the street is acceptable. Mr. James responded the storm drain is acceptable. Chairman McNiel questioned the average requested building-to-curb setback for the 26 homes for which a variance is requested. Mr. Hayes replied that it varies from 8 to 15 feet with the majority being in the 10 to 12 foot range. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Steve Kabel, representing Fu Mai Limited Partnership, 10790 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they had conducted market studies and determined that a single-family detached product would be best for this area even though it would yield only approximately 6 units per acre as opposed to attached multi-family units which could yield up to 14 units per acre. He said the recommendations from the Pre-Application Workshop had been incorporated into and improved the project. He thanked staff for their input during the process and said they supported the findings and recommendations of staff. He requested deletion of Standard Condition A.5, regarding establishment of a Mello-Roos District for school facilities, because he believed it is contrary to Senate Bill 1287 and enforcement would be unlawful. He felt they should not be required to provide improvements including the 20 foot widening of the Cucamonga Creek Channel as requested in Engineering Condition la. He believed at one time it was a capital improvement project for the City and he requested that it be reclassified as such. He thought their project would only generate about 2 percent of the 33,000 daily vehicle trips along the frontage. He said they objected not only to the approximate $300,000 cost, but also the significant review and design process through the Flood Control District and perhaps the Army Corps of Engineers. He stated they were not objecting to making improvements on the Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 23, 1993 south side of the project frontage. He said in talking with the City Engineer, they were told they would have to put up the cash to pay for the widening but they would be credited initially against transportation development fees and any costs in excess would be eligible for a reimbursement agreement. He noted that would require them to pay to borrow the money and would tie up their project because they would have to process through the regional agencies. Mr. Kabel noted that they are providing a shared access opportunity to the mobile home park and he requested that the park contribute toward reimbursement for the cost of the Foothill Boulevard traffic signal at the time of any additional development-related activities to the mobile park. He stated two members of the design team were available to answer any questions. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He requested that the question regarding Mello-Roos participation be addressed. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the standard condition regarding Mello-Roos participation was prepared following discussions with the various school districts in the City, at which time both the school districts and the City expressed a concern that adequate schooling should be provided for any residential development. Mr. Hayes also noted that the affected school districts had not responded to the notice for this tract. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that if the school districts indicate there will be no adverse impact with payment of the standard fees, the condition would be moot. He believed the condition is still valid under the new state law. Chairman McNiel asked that Engineering respond to Mr. Kabel's other comments. Mr. James stated the condition regarding widening of the bridge is typical for projects which are adjacent to bridges. He affirmed the applicant will receive full credit against the transportation fees which would amount to approximately $250 to $270 thousand upon full build-out and he felt the bridge could be built for less than $300 thousand. He said Engineering staff feels the bridge should be widened with this development but the street width transitioning could probably be accomplished through striping if the bridge is not widened. Chairman McNiel asked if the cost for the bridge widening could be shared with other projects in the immediate area if they should develop. Mr. James believed all of the money would be credited through the transportation fees. Chairman McNiel asked if it is imperative that the bridge be widened at the time the project is built or if the City had any precedent for delaying the construction. Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 23, 1993 Mr. James replied that the first few phases of the project will not generate enough traffic to constitute an immediate need for widening of the bridge; but the bridge would need to be widened to accommodate installation of the median island. He said if Cal-Trans does not permit installation of the median island, the houses could be proportionately occupied consistent with Ordinance 420 prior to widening of the bridge. Chairman McNiel stated he was attempting to see if there would be time for the applicant to process through other agencies. Mr. James stated that Ordinance 420 describes the occupancy which can be issued proportional to the amount of improvements accomplished as conditioned by the project. He said staff could deal with the occupancy issue. Chairman McNiel asked about the intersection at Foothill Boulevard. Mr. James said there is a future shared driveway with the mobile home park and it has been conditioned by the mobile home park. He noted the applicant had not objected to installing the signal, but rather had requested partial reimbursement from the mobile home park if it should redevelop. He stated staff would not object to such reimbursement. Mr. Hanson stated reimbursement request data is included only for information, rather than as a condition and should not be thought of as limiting such requests. He said staff would consider any reimbursement requests submitted by the applicant. Mr. James stated that the information is used for tracking by Engineering staff. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the project is nice for a difficult piece of property. He thought the traffic signal should be installed prior to occupancy of the first phase because Foothill Boulevard is heavily traveled and curves near the entrance. Commissioner Melcher thought Cal-Trans regulates whether there can be a signal and he thought that may cause a problem for the applicant. Commissioner Tolstoy acknowledged that Cal-Trans governs the timing for signal installation, but he felt it should be installed with the first phase if Cal-Trans permits it. Commissioner Vallette remarked she had been on the Design Review Committee. She felt it will be a very nice project and expressed appreciation for the applicant's consideration of the Commission's concerns. Commissioner Chitiea supported the variances. She felt having the majority of the open space in private yards met the intent of the open space requirements. She felt the project is attractive. Commissioner Melcher supported the project but he felt perhaps the Development Code should be revisited to accommodate developing at a lower density than called for rather than relying on the variance process. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 23, 1993 Chairman McNiel agreed such a change to the Development Code would be a good idea. He thought there would also be places near the 1-15 where applicants will wish to develop below the designated density ranges. He agreed that the objections raised by Mr. Kabel were economically sound, but he felt the Commission's duty is to protect the City at large. He noted there were opportunities for the applicant to recoup some of the costs. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there was support for requiring installation of the traffic signal prior to occupancy of the first phase if Cal-Trans would permit it. Chairman McNiel asked if there is a left-turn lane into the mobile home park. Mr. James responded there is a center lane which permits left turns going either in or out of the project. Commissioner Melcher observed that the resolution requires the signal but includes an alternate provision for in-lieu contribution if Cal-Trans does not approve the signal at this time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he did not want to stall the project, but he felt the signal should be installed as soon as possible. Mr. Buller stated that Cal-Trans was notified of the City's street improvement concepts when the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was processed and they have not objected to a signal at this location. He felt the key would be whether Cal-Trans feels the traffic counts warrant a signal at this time. He felt the condition was satisfactory as written, combined with the Commission's minute action directing that the signal be installed with the first phase if possible. Commissioner Tolstoy said that would be fine. Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded by Tolstoy, to issue a negative declaration and approve the resolutions approving Tentative Tract 15540 and Variance 93-03 with minute action direction to staff to attempt to have the Foothill Boulevard signal installed concurrent with the first phase. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried CJ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-18 - JONES - A request to establish an indoor paintball recreation facility in a 14,000 square foot warehouse within the Biane Winery complex on 6.7 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10013 8th Street - APN: 209-201-19 and 20. Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 23, 1993 Commissioner Melcher noted that the banquet facility was not listed as a use. He remarked he had recently attended a banquet luncheon and noticed that the parking appeared impacted. He questioned if that use should not have been included in the parking calculations. Mr. Ross responded that the leasing agent had informed him that the banquets are held primarily in the evenings and on weekends. Chairman McNiel asked how many people the banquet facilities seat. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that it could accommodate approximately 100 people. Chairman McNiel asked if the buildings which are currently occupied have been seismically retrofitted. Mr. Ross replied that, per an agreement with the Building Official, current businesses could continue occupancy prior to seismic upgrading but any new tenants could occupy only after their portion of the building is retrofitted. He said the engineer for the property owners had submitted a phasing plan for upgrading the entire structure, which indicated complete upgrading by May 1995, the required completion date, but the phasing has fallen behind schedule. Chairman McNiel asked if the owner intends to maintain the buildings. Mr. Ross said that was his understanding and the City would like to see that happen as the buildings are historical. He noted that the owner's representative was in the audience. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Robert Jones, Owner, 6038 Garnet, Rancho Cucamonga, discussed the sport. He said the facility would be open to the public although it normally is played by organized leagues. He also hoped to it would be used as a police training facility. Chairman McNiel asked how many people normally would use the facility at one time. Mr. Jones replied that they plan to limit the number of players because it is indoors. He said it could be played by as few as 2 people or by two teams and they would allow a maximum of 15 people per team. Commissioner Chitiea asked what type of clean up facilities would be provided and if it would include showers. Mr. Jones replied they would love to provide showers, but it would not be economical at the present time. He said they will rent coverails and will have clean up stations with soap and water. He felt that would be sufficient with the coverails and protective gear. He said the paint balls are biodegradable, non-toxic and can be cleaned up with soap and water. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 23, 1993 Commissioner Chitiea asked what precautions would be taken so that people leaving the facility would not be tracking the paint around the premises. Mr. Jones said there will be an area where the people derobe, clean up, and wipe their shoes. He said they also plan to use rubber mats, etc. He observed that the winery is an historical area and said they also do not want anyone tracking paint outside their facility. Commissioner Vallette asked if Mr. Jones was concerned about any of the conditions. Mr. Jones replied negatively. Paul Biane, Rancho Cucamonga Winery Property, 10013 Eighth Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that parking for the banquet facility is generally on the west side of the winery, and the paint ball facility is on the east side. He noted there are separate parking areas. He observed that the staff report indicated there are no specific Code requirements for parking and he felt requiring one space per employee and per customer was excessive. He thought a maximum of 25 spaces would be more appropriate for the maximum 35 people. Mr. Ross explained that he had called several cities who have paintball facilities and they did not have specific parking requirements. He said staff had recommended one per person because there may be times where the parking demand would be increased because of an overlap of the next group arriving before the first group had left. Mr. Buller said staff had made an educated guess in determining the appropriate parking calculations. He noted there is room for the 35 required spaces. He suggested that rather than have the applicant pay for a parking survey, it may be best to leave the requirement at 35 spaces and monitor the usage. He said the applicant could later return to request a modification. Mr. Biane stated that would be acceptable, as he only wanted to have an opportunity to modify the parking requirements in the future, if the need should arise. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if some of the vacant property could be converted to parking if necessary. Mr. Biane said there is remaining vacant land, but it may require additional infrastructure for drainage if they chose to develop it. He reported they were in the process of working with the Building Official in an effort to gain additional time to comply with Ordinance 417 regarding seismic retrofitring. He said they plan to keep the structures intact. He said they plan to retrofit all the buildings, but they are behind in their schedule and are attempting to find ways to finance the upgrading. He felt that if the City Council does not amend the ordinance to allow additional time, they cannot afford to retrofit the buildings. Chairman McNiel observed that any amendment to the ordinance would only be the purview of the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 23, 1993 Mr. Buller commented that the resolution required that the applicant secure approval of the Building Official prior to occupancy. He observed that the Building Official's decision would not be appealable to the Planning Commission. He noted that any ordinance revision would have to go through the Building Official and the Community Development Director and be approved by the City Council. Commissioner Chitiea asked what precautions would be made to be sure that paint is not tracked around the winery complex. Mr. Biane felt something could be worked out with the tenant. that Biane has a full-time maintenance staff. He remarked Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitiea, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-18. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried New Business DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-08 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS - A request to construct a 33,000 square foot retail building (Circuit City) and a 23,500 square foot retail building (Office Depot) within a previously approved commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located south of Foothill Boulevard, east of 1-15 - APN: 229-031-41. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel asked if the cornice work would be the same material as is on the other buildings. Mr. Murphy replied that it will be a latex-treated foam material which will be stained. He said the wainscot will still be pre-cast stone. He said there had been discussions with the applicant, who in turn has had discussions with the manufacturer on achieving uniformity in the staining. He said that test panels have been requested in an attempt to be sure there is an even application. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the color of the tile proposed for the front of Circuit City. Mr. Murphy replied that it is a ceramic burgundy tile and a sample had been shown at the first Design Review Committee meeting. He said it is not the same as the standard red tile that Circuit City has used in the past. Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 23, 1993 Commissioner Melcher stated he was satisfied the tile will be burgundy. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Greg Wattson, The Wattson Arno Company, 3620 Birch Street, #100, Newport Beach, stated they had modified the buildings in accordance with the Design Review Committee's suggestions. He said the tile is a deep burgundy. He stated he had not brought the tile with him and suggested that staff could approve the tile. He commented that the square footage on Office Depot is 24,978 instead of 23,500 as shown on the resolution. Chairman McNiel felt the Office Depot building is very attractive. Commissioner Tolstoy asked what tile was being used at the top of the Office Depot tower. Mr. Wattson responded that it was a burgundy tile matching the Circuit City tile. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the burgundy color appears anywhere else in the center. Mr. Wattson replied that the burgundy color appears only on the Circuit City building and on the focal tower of Office Depot. Commissioner Chitiea asked if any of the other towers in the center have tile. Mr. Wattson responded they do not. Mr. Murphy said the focal tower has been in its current general configuration since the early stages. He noted that several of the other towers had been scaled down and simplified. Commissioner Chitiea asked if the ceramic tile had been envisioned in the earlier stages. Mr. Murphy thought the ceramic tile was a fairly recent addition to try to tie in with Circuit City. Commissioner Melcher noted that he and Commissioner Tolstoy had agreed to the front loading spaces and he thought the other Commissioners should understand the reasoning and decide if it is appropriate. Herbert Horowitz, Circuit City architect, 1833 Victory Boulevard, Glendale, commented they had discussed the need for customer pick-up areas to facilitate loading of larger items into customers' vehicles. He noted the three parking spaces are lowered approximately 2 feet below the main walking plaza. He stated the edge of the area is articulated with detailing similar to the base of the building. He remarked that planters have been placed on either side of the area to soften the look. He said that typically 15 percent of the products sold are picked up at a customer pick-up area. Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 23, 1993 Commissioner Melcher asked Mr. Horowitz to discuss the material being used for paving the parking spaces. Mr. Horowitz stated they had originally discussed using the same material as the plaza level but agreed it should not match the plaza texture and material because it would then appear to be a pedestrian walkway. Commissioner Melcher stated that the Design Review Committee agreed asphalt would be appropriate. Mr. Horowitz said they may also use black concrete. Commissioner Melcher observed that the applicant had indicated that with the significant change in level, a contrast of texture and color is very important so that people would be visually aware of the edge. Mr. Horowitz observed that the layout is a common installation for Circuit City projects. He said the earlier 15 stores had customer pick-ups in the rear of the stores, but those stores are now being retrofitted because it is too inconvenient for customers. He requested clarification of Condition 5, which calls for the cornice treatment to return around the corners, and said that they intended to profile the lower cornice element at the corner and where the cornice meets the tile. Commissioner Melcher thought that the cornice was to be returned in all cases, so there would not be a profile piece. Chairman McNiel agreed with Commissioner Melcher. Commissioner Chitiea questioned if the burgundy tile has a glossy or matte finish and what color grout would be used. Mr. Horowitz responded it is a glazed, ceramic, relatively high-gloss tile. He said the individual tiles are not read, but instead the color feature. He said the grout would match but be slightly lighter in value. There were no further public comments. regarding the will-call parking. Chairman McNiel asked for comments Commissioner Chitiea questioned if there would be sufficient room for backing in to the area without tying up the main driving aisle. Chairman McNiel did not feel it would be any more difficult than backing out. Mr. Murphy felt it would be a fairly easy for backing in. He observed the area is adjacent to a fire lane so the width is greater than in a normal drive aisle. Chairman McNiel asked if there would be anything at the top of the customer pick-up area to indicate the drop would be greater than a normal curb. Mr. Murphy said there would not be a built-up lip, but there would be a 6-inch wide concrete area with a color change. Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 23, 1993 Chairman McNiel voiced concern that a big yellow caution curb not be painted. Mr. Murphy said that was not the applicant's intent. Chairman McNiel invited Mr. Horowitz to comment on the area. Mr. Horowitz pointed out that the American Disabilities Act requires that detectible warning strips be used whenever there is a vertical separation between a walking surface and another surface. He said pre-cast tiles or concrete pavers with raised domes are typically used to warn about the change in grade from the walking surface to the driving surface. He said it was their intent to place the warning strips at that location. Commissioner Chitiea asked if employees take equipment out to the vehicles for customers. Michael Bank, consultant to Circuit City, 4949 Ethel Avenue, Sherman Oaks, remarked that customers can hand carry items to their vehicles in the customer pick-up area but there are no carts available to the customer, so that any wheeled help is via a dolly under control of the employees. He said in the eight years they have been operating, they have never had an accident or lawsuit involving customer pick-up. There were no additional public comments. Brad Buller, City Planner, suggested the Planning Commission may wish to condition the project to retrofit the customer pick-up area to normal parking spaces if the need for the customer pick-up area should cease to exist in the future. Chairman McNiel agreed such a condition should be added. He requested that architectural means be used to ensure safety in the customer pick-up area to avoid the use of yellow caution paint on the sidewalk or "watch your step" signs. He asked for comments regarding the burgundy tile. Commissioner Chitiea felt the tiled area constitutes an enormous sign because it is out of character with the rest of the center. She noted the tiled area is a corporate color and therefore only becomes the background for the Circuit City sign. She felt that if Circuit City were to leave the building, the tile would still indicate that the building had at one time been a Circuit City because of the design and trademark color of the tile. She felt the addition of the tile on the tower element of Office Depot would be out of place and inappropriate. She preferred a tile color matching the balance of the center. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the burgundy tile is a trademark for a national concern but he felt the only place in the City where he felt it would be appropriate would be a regionally related shopping center. He agreed that the tile on the focal tower should be changed. Commissioner Vallette noted a teal color tile is being used at the store fronts and she felt that would be better for the tower. Planning Commission Minutes -11- June 23, 1993 Commissioner Chitlea felt any of the tiles already in use in the center would be more appropriate for a background for the Circuit City sign and for the tower element. Commissioner Vallette felt the burgundy would tie in with the other two tiles. She asked if the other Commissioners felt a matte finish for the burgundy, instead of the high gloss, would blend in better with the center. Commissioner Chitiea noted another pad building had been proposed to have a red trim and the Commission found that it was not appropriate for the center because it did not create a sense of unity. She felt the same argument applied to this building. She recalled a market where the Commission had the sign design changed because the large background was considered part of the sign face. She felt the burgundy tile is more of an advertising feature than an architectural one. Chairman McNiel did not object to the burgundy tile and felt it is an architectural feature similar to the granite on the front of Target. He did not feel it is as overwhelming as their old style stores while still identifying it. He thought it is attractive. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it creates a startling entry. Commissioner Chitiea felt the granite on the Target entrance is subtle. Chairman McNiel agreed the burgundy tile is not subtle, but he still felt it is attractive. Commissioner Chitiea felt the high gloss burgundy tile is not appropriate for this center. Chairman McNiel acknowledged that it is out of character for the center, but he did not feel it to be inappropriate. Mr. Buller concurred with Commissioner Chitiea's comments that the signature color would tend to identify Circuit City. He thought the plane where the tile is located would be easily adaptable to a variety of other materials and a new user may not want to keep the burgundy tile because of its association with Circuit City. Commissioner Chitiea asked thoughts on the tile background being considered a field, making the entire area a sign. Mr. Bullet did not feel the entire color area would be considered a sign even though it is a corporate color. Commissioner Vallette agreed with Commissioner Chitiea that the high gloss burgundy tile may be inconsistent with the color tile approved in the past. She said she would support going to a matte finish so that it would better blend with the center. She asked if Commissioner Chitiea would favor that change. Planning Commission Minutes -12- June 23, 1993 Commissioner Chitiea felt the color should be one of the other approved ones; however, she felt using a matte finish would help to tone down the look. Chairman McNiel did not object to the gloss tile. Commissioner Melcher indicated he was not interested in toning down the look. He observed that the store is hundreds of feet from Foothill Boulevard and far west of the most westerly driveway to the site. He thought the store would be mainly noticed from the freeway. He did not want to make it appear bland. He supported the glossy burgundy tile. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Chairman McNiel asked about the cornice treatment as it approaches the tile. He did not like the profile approach. Commissioner Vallette felt staff could work out the details. Commissioner Melcher suggested the cornice could be returned onto itself, back to the surrounding surface. Chairman McNiel asked the applicant for input. Mr. Horowitz suggested the cornice be taken to the middle of the plane and then return on itself. Chairman McNiel felt it should be taken closer to the edge of the tile. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed. Mr. Horowitz said that would be satisfactory. reached with staff. He felt agreement could be There were no additional public comments. Commissioner Tolstoy asked for the other Commissioners' thoughts on the burgundy tile being used on the Office Depot tower. He observed he and Commissioner Chitiea had both expressed the opinion that it should be one of the other tile colors used in the center. Commissioner Vallette felt it should be consistent with the remainder of the center rather than burgundy. Commissioner Melcher agreed that would be best. Mr. Murphy stated the applicant did not object to that. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Development Review 93-08 with modifications to provide for staff approval of the design for the cornice element at the tile, the tile color for the Office Depot tower to be selected from the color palette in use in the rest of the center, and retrofitting the customer pick-up parking area if not needed in the future. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -13- June 23, 1993 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CHITlEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE NONE -carried , , , , Ee EVALUATION AND COMMENT ON PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR SCHOOL SITE IN ALTA LOMA - ALTA LOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT - Pursuant to State Law (Public Resources Section 21151.2), the School District requests that the Planning Commission comment on a proposed 13 acre elementary school site located at the southeast corner of the Chaffey Community College site. APN: 201- 191-15, southeast portion. No action. Withdrawn by applicant. , , , , PUBLIC COMMENTS There were public comments at this time. , , , , COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Tolstoy gave a brief update on the Cal-Trans meeting regarding Route 30. He said Cal-Trans stated they are currently working on right-of-way acquisition and environmental documents and indicated they are considering the Carnelian ramp construction. He noted that Cal-Trans had requested a design group from all the involved cities to work on landscape design, funding of the proposed landscaping, and overpass and soundwall designs. He said the funding of the freeway will determine the phasing of the freeway. He said the issues of sound and safety were discussed in connection with truck traffic. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that there is disagreement among the cities as to whether there should be a complete prohibition of truck traffic, restriction of truck traffic to nights, or no restrictions at all. He stated that Upland is opposed to any restrictions because they want the rock crusher trucks on the freeway. He said the other cities seem to favor some type of restrictions. He indicated Cal-Trans had conducted a study regarding having light rail in the medians. He said light rail is more feasible because it would cost from $10 to $15 million per mile as opposed to a much higher cost for heavy rail. He said Cal-Trans is not considering adding light rail as the freeway is built, but instead constructing the overpasses in such a way that light rail could be added in the future. He noted that most bridges are currently supported in the median area but light rail would require that two supports be constructed with the light rail running between them. He said that would obviously add a lot of cost to the construction. Me thought the consensus was that the freeway should be constructed to accommodate the future addition of light rail. Commissioner Melcher noted that Cal-Trans seemed resistant to constructing the freeway to accommodate the light rail because it would mean support columns Planning Commission Minutes -14- June 23, 1993 would then be in the way of potentiel bus lanes. He said most people attending the meeting felt Cal-Trans should figure out a way to construct the freeway to accommodate the future addition of either light rail or bus lanes. Brad Buller, City Planner, discussed the Joint Powers Agreement. He said the attorneys were drafting an agreement to ensure there would not be a burden of debt on the cities. He said Rancho Cucamonga, La Verne, and Claremont are attempting to develop a matrix of unresolved issues related to the freeway to help the Joint Powers Authority to understand what issues have and have not been addressed. , , , , Commissioner Melcher observed that the Municipal Code allows the City Council to extend the expiring term of Planning Commissioners for a maximum of six months. He noted that the terms of two of the Commissioners had expired on December 31, 1992. He questioned if their votes could be challenged if they continue to serve before the appointment process has been completed. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that traditionally all seats, whether appointed or elected, fulfill the term until their successors are sworn in and seated. He did not feel it would impact the outcome of any decisions. Chairman McNiel stated it was his impression that the City Council had indicated the remaining three Commissioners whose terms had not expired would be terminated as of July 1, 1993, and he questioned if the three Commissioners could act after July 1. Commissioner Melcher thought the Council may wish to temporarily extend the terms of the Commissioners until the interview process is completed. Commissioner Vallette suggested that one meeting be held toward the end of July. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff would notify the Commission if it was determined there would be any legal problems placing any actions taken by the Commission in jeopardy. He said staff would take the position that the Commissioners would continue to serve at the discretion of City Council until new appointments have been made. , , , , , Commissioner Melcher mentioned Mr. Biane's suggestion that the deadline for seismic retrofitring be extended by the City Council. He said he thought the ultimate deadline had been set by the state and the Council may have no authority to extend it. He thought that when the Planning Commissioners begin sitting as the Historic Preservation Commission, they may wish to formulate a recommendation that the City Council consider some system of financially assisting privately held properties through the Redevelopment Agency rather than having the properties destroyed because of a lack of retrofitring capital. Planning Commission Minutes -15- June 23, 1993 Commissioner Tolstoy felt that might be appropriate but he noted that the Bianes have so far resisted offering their property for historic designation. He thought that the City might offer financial retrofitting assistance in exchange for historic designation. Commissioner Melcher felt there would have to be some sort of contract guaranteeing that the property would remain for a number of years. He felt that every person who enters facilities in need of seismic retrofitting is at risk. Commissioner Chitiea felt that anything which could be done to encourage the use of the buildings would be beneficial. Chairman McNiel felt it would also be good to encourage maintaining the buildings. Commissioner Tolstoy asked that the Development Review Processing Subcommittee send a memorandum outlining some of the ways in which the Commission has worked with the development community to expedite projects. He noted that quite often applicants have thanked the Commission and staff for helping to make projects better than what had originally been proposed. He feared those compliments are not reaching the City Council members. It was the consensus of the Commission that such a memorandum should be sent. There was a discussion of the Planning Commission workshops on goals and priorities. It was the consensus of the Commission that Chairman McNiel should forward to the City Council a listing of actions taken to date and in process to improve the planning process. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallette, to adjourn. 10:25 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to 5:00 p.m. on July 7, 1993, at the Tolstoy house, 9686 Hillside Road, Rancho Cucamonga, for a workshop on Planning Commission Goals and Priorities. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -16- June 23, 1993